The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1887-04-21
The Law of Libel Defined.

The State of the 18th has the following
synopsis of recent decision of the Supreme
Court of Virginia, defining more clearly
the law of libel;
An opinion was to-day rendered in the Sn-
nreme Court in the case of r.. b. Cbatlin against
b. H. Lynch, which went up from the Circuit
Court OF Richmond. 1t was a suit brought by
Chaf1in for libel and for using Insulting words,
under the statute, The case was tried in the
lower court in December. 1855, and verdict Tor
81 500 rendered in favor of Lynch.
The origin of the action was this: On the 9TH
of March, 1881. r. b. ChaiIln & CO. published a
card in the Dispatch headed, False Rumors
| About R. Il. Chaffin & Co. Being Out of the Real
Estate Business in which, on the authority O.
one William Harper, OF Michigan, they alleged
depots to meet their correspondents ana rep
resented to them that r. b. Chaffin q Co. was
| out of the real estate business. Messrs. r. b
| Chaf1in & Co. thereupon announced their pur,
| pose to sue II l.. Staples Co. for $25,OOo and
asserted that they would prove the truth Q
| Two DAYS thereafterD ID. II. Lynch published in
the Dispdic7 a card In eply 10 this in which he
announced that the assertion that IN as cIerF
| of III H. Staples & Co. went to the railroad de-
pots of this city, occupying the position CT {
negro hickman. to draw OIL the customers
| r. r ChatIin Il Co was q cowardly, malicious
! and contemplate lie.'' la the next issue OF The
| Dispnich r. B. Chaffin published a card, which
| was the foundation OF this suit. In this care
| Mr. Chaffn asserted that any one who wa'
| scoundrel enough TO have acted as D. IL Lynei
| was represented to have acled WAS, IN seb
| stance beneath the notice of q gentleman, ant
he referred to d. II. Lynch as d" q creature whs
] had the well-known character OF liar"
| LYNCH brought suit FOR libel on this last pub
LEGATION, and to-day the supreme Court-JQdg
Lewis delivering opinion OF tie coutt-iell
that Chaffin's communication IN replying u
T,vnch. who had provoked it, was q privileged
| commune ation and that the instructions glVel
nv the lower court were erroneous; that Tn
lower court should nave Instructed tiie jury :
find for the defendant ,o..a4,o. ,1o4,..
THE oninion of the court explains the doctrin
of a "priyileged communication" ana II ma
now be asserted as law that when q man ma
been unjustiy attacked IN @ newspaper ne "a
the riohf to reply back to the attack, provide
he does so in good faith and for the protectio
of his character his family, or his business; 0
in OH er words, that he has the right TO probee
himself socially or in q business point OF view
The oninion is q long and clear one, and define
more clearly the law of libel ana slandeT INA
does any case decided in Virginia WITHIN N
past twenty-five years. 1t mas been uhcefI3 4
us to whether q common law actlOn coulu
II mixed with a statutory one.
The Supreme Court sustains tue lower COW
| in overriding the demurrer in this case, d II
hereby decides that words afft|eH as Me 49, q
against insulting words. There WAS an. 4n, ~
ground for the demurrer, to WI : l n'se ~ n
claratton blended the common INV ~. ,Ia
statutory form of action. dnis Gtou"o W.
likewise decided to pe unteh;tDie, ,,..t c.,,,
The trial of the case in-the Clrctit S'i -
sumed six days, and the record Wtlet. 49, -
to the Suoreune Court amounted 10 MOI a.
! 00naoes hiring the trial the COURTROOM wa
crowded Messrs. NJ. NJ. Gillian Ji,ch SUI ~ wv =!
and John Lyon were counsel loI MI S''i ~ -,
and MessTs Edgar Allen ana IL oiists " ''sA
son represented Mr.. Lyneh.